No. 25-376

Dustin Thomas House Darden v. Crowd Management Service

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2025-09-30
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response Waived
Tags: 42-usc-1983 constitutional-accountability first-amendment government-contractors police-powers state-action
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity Privacy
Latest Conference: 2025-11-07
Question Presented (from Petition)

Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, private actors constitute state actors when they exercise governmental authority or act jointly with state officials. Courts have disagreed about how to apply state action doctrine to private contractors who exercise state-licensed police powers at government-funded operations while suppressing constitutionally protected speech. In the decision below, the Ninth Circuit held that private security contractors possessing state-licensed police powers do not qualify as state actors under § 1983, even when they exercise those powers at government operations to suppress speech on matters of public concern. That ruling reflects a narrow approach to state action doctrine that conflicts with this Court's functional analysis in Brentwood Academy and creates a constitutional accountability gap. Two other circuits have similarly restricted state action doctrine for private contractors, while multiple circuits apply broader, functional approaches that recognize state action when private parties exercise governmental authority under state license or in coordination with government officials. The question presented is: Whether private security contractors exercising state-licensed police powers at government-funded operations constitute state actors under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when they suppress constitutionally protected speech on matters of public concern.

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether private security contractors exercising state-licensed police powers at government-funded operations constitute state actors under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when they suppress constitutionally protected speech on matters of public concern

Docket Entries

2025-11-10
Petition DENIED.
2025-10-22
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/7/2025.
2025-10-17
Waiver of right of respondent Crowd Management Serv. to respond filed.
2025-09-24
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 30, 2025)

Attorneys

Crowd Management Serv.
Thomas James CollinsMerrick, Hofstedt & Lindsey, P.S., Respondent
Dustin T.H. Darden
Dustin Thomas House Darden — Petitioner